London Salmon: A new structure for London Government

This policy suggestion comes from the blogger London Salmon.

> Policy Summary

To reform the GLA so that the powers of the Mayor of London are suitably balanced to reflect the wishes and views of all Londoners.

> Policy Explanation

The Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority (GLA) were created in 1999 in response to the unique governance problem in London. After the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC) in the 1980’s, a power vacuum was created in which 32 Boroughs and central government tried to come together to deliver services in London, with arguably little success. Regardless of our view of the GLA, it is here to stay, so we must reform it to be the genuinely streamlined authority that we were promised.

After a London wide referendum, the Mayor of London was created - the first time a genuinely powerful directly elected individual was created in the U.K. The post was designed to operate on the regional, strategic level and given vast powers over transport, and some over housing and police. The government’s intention was to create an executive heavy power structure, with the London Assembly, a 25 member elected body only given soft powers of oversight. However, despite the understandable focus on strategic power, the lack of a powerful check and balance leads to problems in any organisation, as excessive power nearly always corrupts.

The Mayor has unfettered executive power; on any proposal within his remit; all he is legally required to do is hold a formal consultation. He is not bound by the results, and there is no requirement for him to take on any of the views expressed in the consultation. So, measures like the West London Tram and the western extension of the Congestion Charge have gone through, even though the majority were against them.

The London Assembly has no power to vote on or veto any Mayoral proposals. They do have a vote on the budget, but that requires a two-thirds majority to agree on a budget amendment that only considers headline figures. Because of the electoral system of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR), a two-thirds majority on an alternative budget has never been agreed.

My policy would be to amend the GLA Act 1999 so that the London Assembly is given the power to vote on every Mayoral strategy (as his proposals are termed), including the budget, with a straight majority needed to confirm or defeat the proposal. This would require any Mayor to listen to the concerns of Londoners, and amend their policies accordingly.

I would also require the Transport Commissioner to be confirmed by a straight majority vote of the Assembly, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They would be subject to U.S style confirmation hearings to ensure maximum transparency.

In addition, I would also propose changing how the Assembly is elected. Currently, there is a mix of 14 ‘GLA constituencies’, which often cover areas with two or more Boroughs in them, with the remaining 11 members chosen on a European style party list system. Members are elected at the same time as the Mayor. The original intention was to ensure smaller parties to get a fair hearing, however what has happened in practice is that two members were elected from UKIP, who espouse policies which have nothing to do with London government and two from the Green party, who use their swing votes in the budget round to add needless pork to an already bloated budget.

I would change this drastically. Instead of having another layer of politicians elected to do nothing for four years, I would enlarge the Assembly to 32 members. However, these members would be not elected, but be appointed representatives from each London Borough, selected from the current pool of elected councillors only. So, if party A won control of Borough A, they would appoint a councillor to be the London Assembly Borough representative for Borough A, with an extra allowance and a minimum number of days they would have to be available for Assembly duties. Currently, the Assembly only meets for a maximum of twice a month, with each Committee meeting once a month; this would not be an unmanageable addition to a councillor’s workload.

Whilst there would be more members, the bill would go down. Assembly members currently get paid £50,250 a year, with no minimum attendance, and no formal record kept of votes or meetings attended. Despite the excellent quality of some of them, this is not value for taxpayer’s money, especially as they have no powers.

Having members as councillors would also increase local accountability, so that Boroughs could fight for their interest and have the powers to stop the Mayor going against residents’ wishes. A body of 32 members would also guarantee against parochialism, with compromise being required on major, London wide issues.

This electoral system would be similar to how London Councils work (formerly the ALG), except that with a stronger, Borough represented Assembly, we could abolish London Councils and transfer their remaining functions over parking charges to the Assembly. Political control would depend on the wishes of voters in Borough elections, and would be separate from the politics of Mayoral elections and keep extremist, fringe parties out. Hung councils would have to agree on the political membership of their representative.

Finally, I would change how the Mayor is elected. Currently he is elected by a 1st/2nd preference system, which means there is second round counting the second preference votes, and means tactical voting becomes more prevalent, discriminating against those who voted differently. For example, Ken Livingstone won the last election because the 200,000 odd people who voted for the Lib Dem candidate voted for Livingstone as a second preference to keep the Tory out. I would change it to a FPTP system, and let the best candidate win.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

A stronger Assembly might, in the future, hold a Conservative Mayor to a policy they don’t like and may strike down some very sensible future policies. The political complexion of Boroughs may change in the future to one we do not like. However, these are no arguments against rigorous accountability, in fact any party which believes it genuinely has the best policies and is willing to put in the political energy to achieve them should not be daunted by having to meet a higher standard.

A fully, Borough based, FPTP system for the Assembly would totally exclude smaller parties, but that is not to say their issues will not be heard. A green Conservative party, for example, is far more likely to effect real environmental change than a small but vocal Green Party. And Boroughs have a lot of independent and smaller party representation. Indeed, councils are where smaller parties have the best opportunity to make the breakthrough; both Green members of the Assembly are local councillors, and they have more opportunity to effect change in their respective Boroughs than they do as Assembly members.

The biggest opportunity would be that Londoners would be given a real voice, and reigning in the Mayor would be popular. Stronger accountability would re-engage Londoners in politics, pushing up turnout and keeping out the extremists. These are proposals that every genuine democrat should welcome, as they are sorely needed.

> Questions for Conservative Home Readers

• Would you keep the existing 25 member Assembly, instead of enlarging it to 32?
• Would you make them all directly elected, or just give the existing body more powers?
• Is it better for fringe parties to be in local government or strategic regional government?
• Would having members chosen by their respective Boroughs be accountable enough, instead of directly elected?

> Costs

This is the best part; having a stronger Assembly would stop the Mayor wasting millions on pet projects and having appointed Borough representatives would save the £50,250 a year cost of each current Assembly member. And using FPTP to shut out smaller parties would stop the horse-trading leading to less pork in the budget, whilst making sure their views were heard through the Borough councils.

   

Comments

[Phil Taylor]

I have voted against this proposal although I do think that it has some merits.

The Mayor is over-mighty. GLA members do seem to be expensive in comparison to what they are allowed do. On the other hand I think that it is too much to expect a councillor to really get under the skin of the Police or the LDA or TfL as essentially a volunteer paid a small allowance. You want some heavyweight oversight if you are spending £10 billion per annum.

There should be a stronger relationship between boroughs and GLA members. A one-to-one correspondence and a first-past-the-post vote would do it for me. The direct accountability should keep them active. Two-thirds of them should be able to veto anything. Nothing should happen without half of them agreeing. Yes, the Mayor would have to spend more time negotiating with elected representatives. He would probably have less time for agit prop and foreign travel. So much the better.

The current Mayor with his £3 million a year personal propaganda sheet, £78 million comms budget for TfL, spending all CC revenue of £900 million on capital and running costs, using the police for electioneering this May, spending £100Ks on foreign travel has demonstrated how a badly the current system of London government is broken.

[David Boothroyd]

The idea of removing the direct election of the London Assembly and replacing it with indirectly elected members from Boroughs is a very bad one. When this was last tried, the Metropolitan Board of Works became intensely unpopular because it was not accountable to Londoners - and because the lack of accountability made it corrupt. Moreover, requiring Mayoral strategies to have Assembly approval makes the Mayor a nothing.

What should be done is that the full-time London Assembly should be scrapped and replaced with a part-time, evening meeting, Parliament for London with 150 members elected from single member small constituencies at a different time to the Mayor. This body would really hold the Mayor to account.

[Geoff]

It's impossible for an abolitionist to vote either way on this, therefore much as I always try to vote on these 100Policies ideas I must defer this time.

[CONNELL]

The GLA Act must be repealed and local government across the United Kingdom reduced in it's activity. We are a Parliamentary nation that does not require or seek either legislative devolution or large elected regional governmental structures. They are alien imports.

[Peter Coe]

Connell, do you mean *regional* government should be reduced in its activity - or do you really advocate local councils having even fewer powers? Just appreciate the clarification.

Incidentally, I agree with Geoff, above - I don't see why London needs an assembly at all; a lot of the Conservatives who argue that it's important to hold the Mayor to account seem to be motivated by the fact that London currently has a Mayor they didn't vote for - I wonder if they'd feel so strongly about preserving an Assembly (in whatever form) if a Conservative had won?

[CONNELL]

"Regional government" should be repealed and local councils a minimal scope of activity. Local councils are now devices of central government, directing billion pound budgets and the attending patronage. Their purpose is to enforce the policy programme of government via legislation and a financial hosepipe. Turn off the tap.

[Jake]

This exercise is meant to be a search for 100 election winning policies. This is a "policy" on restructuring local government. It therefore doesn't qualify.

I say "policy" in inverted commas because a real policy is a relatively straightforward but powerful idea which you back up with lots of little ideas. This is just lots of little and very dull ideas.

[Stephen Ogden]

I live in Manchester, in the North of England. This policy idea means nothing to me.

[Richard Baxter]

Jake and Stephen Ogden both make good points. The "100 policies" are supposed to be key policies that could help win the Tories the next general election. This "policy" is not up to scratch - it is far too vaguely defined, and it is completely meaningless to voters outside London.